Re: A calculus of personal identity

From: John M <>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 15:45:08 -0700 (PDT)

your highly critical post is worthwhile reading.
I like your antithesis for 'reductive operands' and
would almost like what you wrote:
> "Personal Identity" is a de-fault resultant of the
> structure of the universe.<
unless I had this idiosyncrasy against axioms, givens,
accepted de-faults etc. All as crutches for the not
(yet?) understood/explainable necessities to feel
comfortable within the theories we embrace.
Of course to use "structure of this universe" is
selective for THIS universe and to refer to some
structure is translatable to "and what may that be?" I
mean "structure". Which I may understand as "relations
within identifiable components - back and forth", but
I do not bank on much acceptence for that.

I seek clearness in processes (changes) and effects
they exercise on "each other" - as WE think of it,
since in the wholeness there are NO separate entities
to react.

About the 'personal identity': I sense a
existence in everything, WE consider separate
entities. I am at the immature level of considering
internal and self-reflexive "togetherness" factors in
functional and interconnected associations (including
us, humans) which covers the undivisable wholeness.
It is not far from your (de-fault) axiom, but I do not
give up to learn more about its details (will I ever?)
and not sit back woth a complacent acceptance of the

John Mikes

--- James N Rose <>

> The notions of observed/observing, of first vs
> third,
> and all such round robin banter .. all fall down as
> nonsense
> conversation because -no one- has in any real sense
> specified the new-functions required to make such
> concepts ... a "calculus".
> There are conflated criteria involved - as well as a
> total
> lack of mathematical symbology that might otherwise
> provide
> fresh territory and useful new ways to procede.
> The tendency of science and mathematics is to get
> rid of
> clutter -- and 'reduce' to basic truths and
> principles and
> operations. The imagined/aspired grail of
> 'objective reality'.
> Unfortunately, reductive operands tend to erase
> 'distinctions'
> that one would otherwise -need- in order to make
> sense of
> 'identity/ies' and comparative-perception-sets: ..
> can V and Z ..
> ostensibly 'identical' in construct .. have
> -different- 'experiences',
> or would they superpositionedly co-mingle and 'be
> one/together'?
> General relativity pushed the envelope even -more
> shut- to distinctions
> by identifying transforms, that do allow for
> alternative experiences
> -but- by invoking the principle that no frame of
> reference is prioritized
> over any other.
> BUT, just because transforms are possible and
> therefore Universals and
> Invariants and Conservants seem to be underscoring
> -reliables- that
> make the Objectivity grail seem more real and
> reachable, it is the
> collateral concurrent fact which is as equally - or
> more - important:
> MANY 'frames of reference' exist - and - they are
> founded on
> criteria which make their distinctionness profound.
> The simplest notion being:
> "entities exist embedded in concurrent spaces;
> nothing is a pure-isolate"
> Math and reductive science ignore and dis-consider
> collateral co-extancy.
> Translated: ... no 'identical' entities could or
> would have perfect identical
> indistinguishable experience(s) .. unless ALL
> internal -and- external parameters
> were as-well 'exactly identical' in all aspects,
> constructs, -and- relations.
> Since the only way for such total identicality to
> exist is such
> entities to be perfectly superpositioned .. and
> that can't happen
> because of the Pauli exclusion principle .. no two
> (or more) 'identities'
> could or would be ... a single persona .. laying
> claim to some
> 'true identity' versus others/clones being
> replicant/false identities.
> Any clones/replicants -- however "similar/identical"
> -- would be their OWN
> persona and experiant .. having access to wholly
> unique and personal
> 'interactions sets', distinct from any other entity.
> "Personal Identity" is a de-fault resultant of the
> structure of the universe.
> Integrity - of systemic base/performance/entity-ness
> is key - for everything.
> Jamie Rose
> Ceptual Institute

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 18:46:10 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST